Leaving on Your Own Terms for Senior Leaders

This is the last in the 360 Feedback Series of Guides that examine one of the hardest experiences a leader could have in their career. The series has so far examined how to identify if your 360 feedback is politically motivated, what to do in that case, how to handle a skip meeting that arrives out of nowhere and how to handle a PIP that is an outcome of such a process.

This has been a hard series to write. Some folks who have read this, are surprised that these types of things happen in organisations. Many of my clients who have read this, recognise their own situations spelt out clearly and are relieved that this is not happening only in their heads. There is so much shame surrounding this process, that it is rarely spoken about. The reason why these guides are written is that, if you are navigating this situation, these guides are meant to offer you guidance, support and research on how to navigate these situations.

In this guide of the series, we examine the question of "Should I leave or not?"

There is one version of exiting a company that many of us dread. The process that begins with the skip meeting or 360 feedback reaches its natural conclusion. Your manager determines that you have not met the success criteria to clear the performance improvement plan (PIP) or a restructure removes your role or you are quietly asked to save face and resign. Here the narrative is controlled by the organisation.

You spend the next few months in a daze, picking up the pieces of your shattered self confidence while questioning "Why did I not take action before?" If this is where you are, here is how to deal with such an exit, and what can you do here that will help you to regain your agency and power in this situation.

Most people, when they think about this situation, assume this is the only version and they dread what's coming.

There is another version.

There is another. You reach your own conclusion about what your management and this organisation have demonstrated they are capable of, how they have wielded the power they possess in relation to you, about whether the conditions for the kind of leadership you want to do exist here, about what staying would actually cost you, and you decide to leave. You could also decide to leave because you see what's coming a few months or few weeks ahead in the process, and you want to save yourself the stress of going through a process that is not supportive to you.

This is a decision you are choosing. You set the timing and shape the narrative. You protect the things that are important to you, and you walk away with your agency and power intact or even enhanced in this process.

This guide is about this decision to leave on our own terms. How to leave as an intentional act rather than a defeat or a failure. About what this decision requires and what the practical architecture of such a decision looks like.

The decision itself

The decision to leave on your terms is rarely a single moment. It is usually a conclusion you reach gradually, across many smaller recognitions, until one day you notice that you have already decided and you are simply waiting for the sense of readiness and the right moment to do so.

Some of the signs that could have led you here are explored below.

That the politically motivated process you are in the middle of, has shown you something about your management, systems and organisation that cannot be unseen. It goes beyond what happened to you, it is about what this organisation and system is willing to do, what it protects as priority, what it will turn a blind eye to and what it will accept. This is not a unanimous verdict on the organisation itself, but it is the reality in the space you are operating. This knowledge changes how you see people around you, and how you have been viewing every insight once that picture clicked in your brain.

Staying in this place, in this team requires you to rebuild your position within the same system that has been used against you. This is possible. Some people do it, and do it well. But it requires a specific kind of sustained attention, maintaining professional relationships with people you no longer fully trust, demonstrating improvement against standards that may shift again, building influence in an environment that has demonstrated it can be turned against you. Whether you are willing and able to do that is a genuine question, not a character test.

That the energy spent managing this situation is energy not spent on the work, energy not spent on personal relationships and projects, on your team and leadership, and the career development that brought you here in the first place. There is a cost to staying inside a political process, not just the obvious one of the process itself, but the quieter opportunity cost of not working towards your priorities.

Another radical way to look at this would be to use this very situation to work on your resilience, self leadership, emotional intelligence, boundaries and equanimity. Here the focus would be to use this situation as the fertile ground for your own self development.

If you have the support (the right kind of network, coach, mentor) then this work is transformational in nature.

However, there would be times in your career where you are willing to rise from the ashes like a phoenix, and there would be times when even getting to work is mentally exhausting. So no matter what decision you make, it is not a judgement on the kind of person you are, but an informed decision on what your priorities are, and what you are willing to put up with and what you'll invest your energy in.

The question worth asking is not "should I stay or should I go?" instead it is "What am I staying/leaving for?"

An obvious answer for you to stay could be for money and job security. A question worthwhile asking at this point is, "Am I willing to stay here and work only for my salary and job security, while accepting that position has become untenable? Am I willing to use the emotional turmoil as fuel for inner growth rather than make me bitter and cynical?"

Ironically, just working for the money is very hard. Most of us become so wrapped in our work as the source for our identity, status, power, validation and meaning. To work just for money, means to be able to let go of what has happened to you personally, and to be professional and make sure you are doing the best you can, in return for the salary.

This is not an easy choice to make and requires a significant amount of resilience and inner work to make sure you are at peace with this choice, while finding your meaning and identity beyond your work.

At this stage of the career where you are in (I'm assuming if you are reading this guide, you are likely to have anywhere over 15+ years of experience), if you are running paycheck to paycheck, then it is worthwhile looking into it and making sure you are creating an emergency fund for yourself that will let you walk out of a mentally draining situation.

If you decide to leave, the question worth answering is, "What is driving this choice and what am I going towards and is that a fantasy or rooted in reality?"

Moving towards something is different from walking away from this situation.

There is no right or wrong way to leave. What is important is to be very clear to yourself, where this decision is coming from. Being honest with yourself matters a lot and it helps you to take responsibility for your choices and gives you more power to engage with your circumstances.

The timing question

One of the things that being inside a politically motivated performance process does is compress your sense of what options are available to you. Each formal step may seem to close off your options. There is a sense of finality when the PIP is in place, when the review dates are finalised and you don't see this working out in your interests. The window to act and the choices available may seem tiny.

But, in most situations, you have more choices than what appears on the surface.

The window for a negotiated exit is much wider than what people realise. It is typically available earlier in the process while it is being formalised or before, and it is available much later even when the formal mechanisms have been initiated.

Organisations running a political process are often willing to negotiate a departure before it reaches its formal conclusion, sometimes well before. The reasons are practical. A contested formal process is expensive, time-consuming, legally uncertain and carries a reputational risk. A negotiated exit with agreed terms removes that uncertainty on both sides. The organisation gets a clean outcome. You get control of the timeline and the narrative, and potentially a financial settlement.

The window for negotiating tends to be widest in the period after the formal process has begun but before it has reached a conclusion. Once an outcome has been formally documented, once a formal dismissal process is underway, the leverage shifts. Acting from a position of measured choice rather than forced response tends to produce better outcomes.

This is not a reason to rush. It is a reason to know that the option exists and to act when you are ready rather than when you think you have no choice.

Many people think this is an option that is available only when it is offered by the organisation to them. But this could be a conversation initiated by you, to understand what is the receptivity to a voluntary negotiated exit.

The practicalities

Understanding what you have to negotiate with

Before you negotiate anything, you need to know what cards you are holding.

Your employment contract tells you your notice period, any specific terms around termination, and any clauses that govern the conditions under which you can leave or be asked to leave. Read it carefully. If there are clauses you do not understand, an employment solicitor or labour law specialist can explain them.

In India, the relevant framework is typically the Industrial Disputes Act, Standing Orders, and the terms of your specific contract. In the UAE and broader GCC, the UAE Labour Law (Federal Law No. 33 of 2021) and equivalent legislation in each emirate govern notice, severance, and end-of-service entitlements. In the United States, employment law is primarily at-will and varies by state, though your contract, any separation agreement, and applicable state statutes govern what protections and entitlements you may have. In Australia, the Fair Work Act 2009 governs most employment relationships, covering notice periods, unfair dismissal protections, and general protections for employees who have been dismissed or had adverse action taken against them.

The specifics vary considerably by country, jurisdiction, contract type, and length of service, so the underlying principle is the same across all contexts: read your contract and understand your rights within the specific legal framework that applies to you.

Your jurisdiction's employment law tells you what your rights are, what the organisation is required to do, what you are entitled to, and what would constitute a breach of your employment rights. In the UK, a person who leaves because the employer's conduct has made their position untenable may have grounds for a constructive dismissal claim. In India, a forced or pressured departure from a senior management role may engage contractual protections and sometimes the Vishaka guidelines in relevant circumstances. In the US, exits involving protected characteristics, whistleblowing, or FMLA coverage may carry federal and state-level protections worth understanding before you negotiate anything. In Australia, the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act cover adverse action, which can include a forced or pressured departure where a workplace right has been exercised.

Understanding whether your situation engages legal protections is a legal question, not one this guide can answer. But knowing the answer changes what you have to negotiate with even if you decide not to go down the legal route.

Your track record tells you what you bring to the conversation. The work you have done, the relationships you have built, the outcomes you have delivered. These are real, and they matter to the negotiation. An organisation negotiating an exit with a high-performing leader who has a strong external reputation is in a different position from one managing out someone with a weak record. Know what you are worth, professionally and specifically.

Independent legal advice is not a luxury at this point if you are in a visible/public high stakes executive role or if you are faced with a situation that has a strong legal dimension. It is information. An employment solicitor or labour law specialist who handles exits can tell you, usually in an initial consultation, what your realistic options are, what the organisation's exposure would be if you were to challenge the process, and what terms are worth seeking. That knowledge is the foundation of any negotiation.

What to negotiate

A negotiated exit typically covers several areas, sometimes in combination. What is realistic in your situation will depend on your contract, your jurisdiction, the organisation's legal exposure, and the specific circumstances.

The first area is your notice period. Whether you serve it in the role or are paid in lieu, and if you serve it in the role, what your responsibilities and access will be during that period. Garden leave arrangements, where you remain employed but are released from duties, are worth exploring if you have sensitive knowledge or client relationships.

The second is financial settlement. This covers any payment above the statutory floor, and what is realistic depends on your jurisdiction, your contract, and the organisation's exposure.

In India, full and final settlements include notice pay, accrued leave, gratuity where applicable, and any contractual severance. In the UK, settlement agreements are common in exit situations and typically include a contribution reflecting notice and any additional amount the organisation is willing to pay for a clean conclusion. In the US, there is no statutory severance requirement in most states; what you receive is almost entirely a matter of negotiation, which makes understanding your leverage particularly important. In Australia, the National Employment Standards set minimum notice and redundancy pay entitlements, and separation agreements typically reflect those floors plus any negotiated amount above them. In the UAE, end-of-service gratuity is a statutory entitlement, not a negotiating chip, though additional compensation is often negotiable.

The settlement amount, beyond the statutory floor where one exists, is a negotiation.

The third is the reference. What the organisation will say about you when asked. A factual reference confirming dates of employment and role title is the minimum. A reference that is warm, specific, and accurate is worth negotiating for. Get it in writing, agreed in advance, before you sign anything.

The fourth covers any restrictive covenants in your contract, clauses that limit what you can do after you leave, such as working for competitors, approaching clients, or contacting colleagues. These are often negotiable, particularly as part of a settlement, and it is worth understanding exactly what you are being asked to agree to before you do.

The fifth is the announcement. How your departure is communicated internally, and what the stated reason is. This is more negotiable than most people realise, and it matters for your professional narrative. "Shirisha has decided to pursue other opportunities" is a different message from "Shirisha's role has been made redundant," and both are different from anything that implies performance concerns. What the organisation says in the announcement shapes what the people who receive it believe. Many people ignore this thinking that "it doesn't matter now" and yet it is, once you are out of this process and reinitiate contact with your colleagues in a different context and environment.

The settlement agreement

If you reach a negotiated exit, it will typically be documented as a full and final settlement or separation agreement in India, a settlement agreement in the UK, a separation agreement in the US, or a deed of release in Australia. The instrument is a legally binding contract in which you agree not to pursue claims against the organisation, and the organisation agrees to the terms you have negotiated.

In India, independent legal advice is not required by law before signing, but it is worth seeking regardless, particularly given the binding nature of the document and the difficulty of revisiting terms once agreed. In the UK, you are legally required to take independent legal advice before signing a settlement agreement, and the organisation is required to make a contribution to the cost of that advice. In the US, there is no legal requirement to take independent advice before signing a separation agreement, but an employment attorney can tell you whether the terms are reasonable and whether your situation carries any legal exposure the organisation has reason to settle. In Australia, you are not legally required to seek independent advice before signing a deed of release, but it is strongly advisable, and some courts have set aside agreements where a party signed without understanding what they were waiving.

Across all jurisdictions, read the agreement carefully, understand what you are waiving, and raise anything that differs from what you agreed in negotiation before you sign. If anything is unclear, ask for clarification.

The narrative

The practical dimensions of the exit matter. The narrative aspect is almost as important, and it tends to receive far less attention.

How you describe your departure, to colleagues, to your professional network, to future employers, is something you can shape. Shaping it is not dishonesty. It is the exercise of judgment about what to share, with whom, and in what terms.

You do not owe anyone a complete account of what happened here.

You owe yourself a version of the story that is accurate, that reflects the work you did and the leadership you brought, and that does not give this process authority over your professional identity that it has not earned.

Several principles are worth holding.

The first is to lead with what you are going toward, not what you are leaving. "I've decided to take some time to think about my next chapter" or "I'm exploring opportunities in a specific direction" are both accurate and forward-looking. They do not require you to explain or justify anything about the situation you are leaving.

The second is that the truth is not the whole truth. Saying that your situation became politically complicated is not the same as saying that you were managed out. Both may be accurate. One of them shapes how people hear everything else you say about your work. Choose which version you want to lead with.

The third is consistency. The version you give to colleagues, to your network, to future employers does not need to be identical in every detail, but it should be consistent in its core elements. Inconsistency creates the impression of something to conceal, even when there is not.

The fourth is to protect your former colleagues. Whatever happened in the process, whatever you know about who said what, the people who remain inside the organisation you are leaving have their own positions to protect. What you say about them, or about the organisation's culture, after you leave has consequences for them that you may not be able to predict. Candour about what happened, when it is relevant, is not the same as burning the building down on your way out.

What you carry forward

The things that belong to you need not be left behind when you leave.

Your track record stays with you. The years of work, the projects delivered, the teams led, the relationships built, these are permanent. An organisation can write a version of the last year that emphasises concerns and omits achievements. The record of what actually happened does not change. This is important, so document this within a few weeks of your exit, while the work is fresh in memory.

Your professional relationships stay with you. The colleagues who have worked with you over years, who know your work and your character, who will speak for you in contexts this organisation will never hear: these relationships are yours, not the organisation's. They are among the most durable assets you have.

Your reputation in your field stays with you. How you are known in your industry, your community of practice, your professional network. This is built over years and is not dismantled by a single employer's internal process. It may need active maintenance, particularly if the circumstances of your departure create questions you will need to address. But the foundation is there.

And the thing that is hardest to articulate but most worth protecting is your relationship with your own leadership and performance. The knowledge of what you are capable of, what kind of leader you are, what you value and how you work. This also means being honest about what aspects of your leadership and performance needs a relook and adaptation to changing times.

Herminia Ibarra's research on professional identity in transition introduces the idea of "possible selves". Ibarra talks about the multiple versions of a future professional identity that open up when you are forced to examine who you are outside the role you have held. A career transition of this kind is not only a loss, it is also an opening of possibilities. The next chapter does not have to be a replication of the last one, and the political process you have been through has, among other things, given you a clear picture of what you do not want in an organisation and why.

The thing that is most at risk in a sustained political process is not your external reputation but your own sense of your own competence and judgment. Research on involuntary career transitions documents what happens when that sense of self is left unexamined during a departure. People reconstruct their professional identity around the narrative the organisation handed them, rather than the one they would choose. Leaving on your terms, when it is possible, is partly about preventing that.

The process does not get to write who you are next. You do.

The question it leaves open

Every departure from a situation like this leaves a question that takes time to resolve. What does this mean about where I should go next?

The organisations that use formal processes politically tend to share certain structural characteristics, among them concentrated power at particular levels, weak accountability mechanisms, and cultures where the informal system is significantly more powerful than the formal one. In India and GCC contexts, high power distance can sharpen these patterns, creating environments where hierarchy concentrates both decision-making and consequence, and where senior women carry the double weight of gendered and geographic under-visibility. Understanding those structural characteristics, and learning to read them earlier, is part of what this experience builds.

It is not a reason to become cynical about organisations. Most workplaces, most of the time, are not running political processes against their senior leaders, and yet, my leadership coaching and political literacy advisory work is full of these instances, which is what led to the creation of this series.

It is, however, a reason to be more discerning about what kind of organisation and system you are walking into, and to use the political literacy you have built, including the hard-won kind, as part of how you assess where you go next and how you navigate it.

The Organisation Politics 101 guide covers the tools for reading an organisation's informal power structure, including how to do that from the outside, in an interview process, before you have accepted anything. That knowledge, applied here, is the thing that makes this experience worth something rather than simply costly. You have paid for it. You may as well use it.

This guide is the final part of the 360 Feedback series within the Political Literacy hub. The full series:

Guide 1: "Is the 360 Feedback Process Being Used Against You?": the diagnostic framework, covering all four instruments and the mechanism underneath. Guide 2: "When You Know: Navigating the Political Feedback Process": what to do once you have reached a conclusion. Guide 3: "The Skip-Level Meeting: What It Signals and What To Do." Guide 4: "How to Respond to a Performance Improvement Plan When the Politics Are Clear." Guide 5 (this guide): "Leaving on Your Own Terms."

Note: This guide addresses the practical, professional, and personal dimensions of leaving an organisation. It is not legal advice. Employment law, notice periods, settlement terms, and your specific rights vary significantly by jurisdiction and by the terms of your individual contract. Before negotiating any exit or signing any agreement, seek independent legal advice from a qualified employment solicitor or labour law specialist.

Frequently asked questions

The questions most people bring after reading this guide.

Explore Other Guides

More from the Political Literacy series

Stay in the Loop

If this guide was useful, the newsletter goes deeper. Practical thinking on leadership, political literacy, and the realities of working life, for senior and mid-career professionals.

References

Ibarra, H. (2003, updated 2023). Working Identity: Unconventional Strategies for Reinventing Your Career. Harvard Business Review Press.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organisations. Pitman Publishing.

Williams, J. C. (2014). What Works for Women at Work. NYU Press.

McDonald, M. and Brach, T. (2019). The RAIN practice. In T. Brach, Radical Compassion. Viking.

Rosenberg, M. B. (1999). Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. PuddleDancer Press.